Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + General + Long Horizon Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 34 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: accuracy. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 34 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsGeneralLong Horizon

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 34 papers for Automatic Metrics + General + Long Horizon Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, BrowseComp and metric focus on accuracy, latency. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 26.5% of hub papers (9/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 8.8% of hub papers (3/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 35.3% of hub papers (12/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 14.7% of hub papers (5/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (11.8% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (2.9% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (55.9% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (11.8% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (2.9% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (55.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.4% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Replacing Multi-Step Assembly of Data Preparation Pipelines with One-Step LLM Pipeline Generation for Table QA

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. Search-P1: Path-Centric Reward Shaping for Stable and Efficient Agentic RAG Training

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Hierarchical LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework with Prompt Optimization for Multi-Robot Task Planning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. VecGlypher: Unified Vector Glyph Generation with Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Provably Safe Generative Sampling with Constricting Barrier Functions

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Learning from Trials and Errors: Reflective Test-Time Planning for Embodied LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.8% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=33, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

ALFWorld

Coverage: 1 papers (2.9%)

1 papers (2.9%) mention ALFWorld.

Examples: SELAUR: Self Evolving LLM Agent via Uncertainty-aware Rewards

Top Papers

Related Hubs